^ So I've heard. I've also heard him say, that basically everything he wanted to say about Bond he put into this film, as if there wouldn't be a next time. It was a major part of him following Nolan's example of his approach to franchise film making.

I think if it wasn't for QoS (which frankly I don't hate, but it has no beginning, middle or end, wtf?) the first three Craig movies would probably be as good a trilogy as the first three Connery movies.

I'd still have to disagree. Casino Royale is really the only one that could be put in the same category as FRWL and GF, and I still prefer those two.

Not Skyfall? To me that's arguably top five, if not top three.

Quote:

QoS is, of course, trash. Easily a bottom five Bond film.

I don't consider it trash, at least not when compared to quite a few Bond movies that came before it. I'm not much of a Moore fan either, so after you get through the [most of] Connery films, and maybe OHMSS, as well as one or two of the Brosnan films I feel like QoS is at least somewhat middle of the pack.

It's watchable, definitely far more watchable than Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever.

I feel like if QoS was a straight to DVD "between story", and marketed as such, people would've warmed to it. It doesn't stand on it's own though. Watching CS straight through to SF and it makes more sense, and has more teeth.

There are two many flaws in Skyfall. It is too long and has a number of pacing issues, especially prior to the final act, the consistent deescalation of the level of threat throughout the film is awkward, and there are plot threads that don't really go anywhere or are not resolved effectively (such as the stolen agent list or Bond's physical problems). What it does well, it does really well, but it isn't near the level of the top Bond films. I'd put it in the top ten, but at the back end. It has more in common with Thunderball or You Only Live Twice than From Russia with Love or Goldfinger.

Quote:

It's watchable, definitely far more watchable than Moonraker and Diamonds are Forever.

Those are bottom five films too. Die Another Day and A View to a Kill are the other two. I like TMWTGG a little bit better thanks in large part to Christopher Lee delivering one of the absolute best performances of any Bond villain, but let's add it to make it a Bottom 6. Those six films are the clear bottom tier when it comes to Bond films. There is quite a gap between those six and the rest.

There is also a clear dividing line between the Top 5 (FRWL, GF, TSWLM, GE, CR) and the lesser films.

There are two many flaws in Skyfall. It is too long and has a number of pacing issues, especially prior to the final act, the consistent deescalation of the level of threat throughout the film is awkward, and there are plot threads that don't really go anywhere or are not resolved effectively (such as the stolen agent list or Bond's physical problems). What it does well, it does really well, but it isn't near the level of the top Bond films. I'd put it in the top ten, but at the back end. It has more in common with Thunderball or You Only Live Twice than From Russia with Love or Goldfinger.

I still like Skyfall but I also find Thunderball underrated on most lists I read. The jetpack steals the show, and it's got great locations. You Only Live Twice is underrated as well, especially due to the setting.

Quote:

Those are bottom five films too. Die Another Day and A View to a Kill are the other two. I like TMWTGG a little bit better thanks in large part to Christopher Lee delivering one of the absolute best performances of any Bond villain, but let's add it to make it a Bottom 6. Those six films are the clear bottom tier when it comes to Bond films. There is quite a gap between those six and the rest.

There is also a clear dividing line between the Top 5 (FRWL, GF, TSWLM, GE, CR) and the lesser films.

Agreed. The worst Bond films are beyond unwatchable. That's why I struggle to put QoS in the same category. I agree the movie is riddled with problems, but I can still watch and enjoy much of it. It's not the irredeemable mess some of them are.

There is so many bad to mediocre films in this series, I don't understand the complaints QoS gets. It is easily top 10 material when you consider the rest of the series.

Exactly. People treat the 23 movies like they're all phenomenal except a few.

OHMSS, GF, DN, CR, FRwL, SF and maybe one or two of the Moore films are all that really qualify as "good" movies, the rest are rather unremarkable to downright bad. With all the QoS has going for it, it simply shouldn't get the flak it gets.

Exactly. People treat the 23 movies like they're all phenomenal except a few.

OHMSS, GF, DN, CR, FRwL, SF and maybe one or two of the Moore films are all that really qualify as "good" movies, the rest are rather unremarkable to downright bad. With all the QoS has going for it, it simply shouldn't get the flak it gets.

I'd take the first four, plus OHMSS and all the Craig films and classify them as "good". The three that are on a fence are GoldenEye, TLD and TSWLM. I use to like them quite a bit, but a recent watching has put them down in my eyes. They haven't aged well imo. On the other hand, Dr. No has risen quite a bit.

__________________"It's true. All of it. The Dark Side. The Jedi. They're real."

Goldfinger has dropped in my eyes, but I also still really like it and find it to be a pretty good film. Not the gold standard for the series others do and as you said a little dated, but I really enjoy it.

__________________"It's true. All of it. The Dark Side. The Jedi. They're real."